Sunday, July 24, 2011

Talking != Doing

He talks about issues in between his work on resolving issues. Twatson talks about issues and then talks about how she talks about talking about issues.  It's all fine and well and to talk about issues. It's not doing nothing per se, but it's also not doing the work.
 This is what I said about a key difference between Twatson and Dear Dick. I'm not claiming to be psychic or anything, but I do think I'm a fairly decent judge of character.  Anyway, here's what Twatson had to say about daycare in her post TAM write-up.

Richard Dawkins didn’t come on the SGU to chat, or talk to me at all, or mention the big to-do at all, but he did say he’d give money to set up childcare at future conferences.* This is great news! We’ve been pestering organizations to do this for years, specifically trying to get Camp Quest to work with the JREF to offer a mini-TAM for kids. I even mentioned it at Skepticon back in 2009 to an enthusiastic response. But, we’ve always lacked the money and the manpower to force the issue. So, win!

Yup. Dawkins was doing the work. And now she's talking about how she's talked about it.  Ok, I think I have her number down pat (got it from a truckstop bathroom).  I love the last bit there - they've lacked the money and manpower to force the issue. So, win!

Is it me or is she claiming victory that the atheist relic of yesteryear took care of? Like her talking about it is what got it done?  And lacked the money?  *quick search* I don't see her attempting to raise a single dollar to get the ball rolling.

Say, isn't skepchick an "organization"? Isn't SGU an organization?  So, she even pesters herself? And still can't get shit done?  I'm not surprised Dear Dick didn't have a sit down with her (for one, she was in a bar boycotting him, and for two, that involves beverages. I think we all know the outcome of trying to offer her a beverage.)

Again. Dawkins does shit and then talks to people for a little while. Twatson talks about some shit and then talks about how she's previously talked about some shit.



John Greg said...

In communications courses -- yes, I too am a graduate of several communications, rhetoric, and other related courses; WIN! ... er, um....

In communications courses it's referred to variously as oblique reference, oblique association, and other similar titles. That means, in one sense, that the writer sets up a rhetorical statement tiying two (or more) unrelated phenomena together, surreptitiously but implicity enabling/encouraging the reader to associate them as being directly related. Marketers, PR specialists, and advertisers do this to great effect all the time.

So to answer your question, "... is she claiming victory that the atheist relic of yesteryear took care of?" In a word, Yes.

Watson is obliquely associating her "actions" and the "actions" of Skepchick with Dawkins's real-world action to make it appear to her sycophantic following that she and Skepchiick are to some degree (that degree being determined in the reader's imagination by how strong a Watson supporter they are) responsible for Dawkins's action.

And, if you care to browse the dreadful midden, you will see that it works. Some of the commentors at Skepchick have responded in a fashion that makes it clear they believe Watson and Skepchick to have had a direct helping hand in getting Dawkins to take the actions he took.

She did a similar thing with her surreptitious but implicit call for a boycott of all things Dawkins.

Justicar said...

Oh, yeah. My question was rhetorical. Of course she's trying to take credit without saying "see what I made him do!"

It's like the video I did on sacred geometry; this works because people don't know any better.

And I called out some jackass over at Ophelia Benson's place when he said that Skepchick wasn't calling for a boycott on Dawkins.

I noted that she was "not" calling for it in the same way that PZ isn't "telling" people to go vote on polls he puts up saying the poll in question "needs help". Just an idle observation. Not a suggestion to go vote on it, or to vote in a particular way.

Then he linked me to the phenomenon of how poll crashing works . . . like I'm unaware of that. That's why PZ does it. But he doesn't actually tell people to vote, or what to vote on, so you can't say that he has done it explicitly.

The asterisk in the quote from her says that she didn't hear Dawkins say it (she was boycotting in the bar at the time), so she just imagines that something is in the works.

So, she's somehow responsible for its coming into being, but it might possibly not come into being, in which case Dawkins is to blame and not her.

She's a piece of work.

Anonymous said...

Yeah... Fucking bitch stealing credit for other people's work. That's some of the lowest shit someone can pull. That cunt makes me want to vomit... well, I'm still a little drunk from last night, so that might have a little to do with it. Let me have some toast and see if that helps...

Nope, it's definitely Twatson's bullshit.

Spence said...

And the irony that any boycott that someone more competent than her might try to organise would actually undermine this support is hilarious. Luckily that didn't happen.

Oddly, just before twatson produced her dating advice for inept skeptical nerds, Jenna Marbles produced some dating advice seemingly targeted directly at Watson. Who knew? Oops, there goes my inner mysogynist again!

Justicar said...

That's hysterical, Spence. I didn't see that link until just now - sorry!